May 25, 2012

It starts at 8. Central, of course. It's Wisconsin, baby. The center of the American political universe. The center, where time is Central. So hang on for 15 minutes. The crazy, recall fun is about to begin.

8:03: We're going to get "an educated and civil debate focused on the issues" to "move this state forward," says a man in a 3-piece suit. Blah blah blah about the rules. The moderators are from Sturgeon Bay, Green Bay, and Milwaukee Bay... I mean, Milwaukee.

8:05: Walker won the coin-toss, gave the first opening statement. Now, it's Barrett, slowly and dramatically telling us — as scripted — about how Walker "tore this state apart." He assures us this isn't just "a do-over."

8:08: The first question is: Why are we here? (I.e., isn't this just a do-over?) Barrett says Walker started "a political civil war" and now they want an end to it. Walker says: It's about our reforms, which are working.

8:11: Should we can the recall? (I certainly think we should.) Walker says "absolutely." It's a "horrible waste of money." He thinks voters will want it changed.

8:12: Walker says if he could do it all over again, he'd have explained what he was doing, and most people would have agreed. He fixed it [the budget], then talked about it. Barrett says: "Scott, you started this by saying you were going to 'drop the bomb'... and you would use 'divide and conquer' to go after the workers... and tear this state apart... You decided to use a budget crisis to try to divide and conquer this state... and you succeeded." (A strong challenge from Barrett.)

8:16: The question is about how to count whether we've lost or gained jobs. Barrett is using the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate, which says Wisconsin has lost the most jobs of any state. If Walker's numbers are right, it would mean the Bureau of Labor Statistics has made the greatest mistake ever. Walker says, those numbers are based on a sample of 3%. Walker is using the actual numbers from 97% of the employers in Wisconsin, submitted as required by law. (Walker should take some time to respond to Barrett's "divide and conquer" attack.)

8:19: What counts as a tax increase? Walker touts his caps on property taxes and the "change in attitude" affecting business. "I believe in getting government out of the way." Barrett brings up "divide and conquer" again and brings up Walker's record as Milwaukee County Executive (before he became governor). He talks about trust and says Walker pushed some debt onto our children (but I can't understand what he is referring to).

8:24: A question about who their contributors are. Barrett says Walker raises too much money from out of state. Barrett names a whole lot of cities in Wisconsin — places that people from out of state don't care about. Sturgeon Bay, Superior, Stevens Point... you get the point. The people from out of state see Walker as a "rock star." The "right wing" loves him, because he wants this state to be a "prototype" for the Tea Party. "He's pleasing these billionaires." Walker says in February and March of 2011, the out-of-state money flowed in against his reforms. That's where this all started. He complains about "all the union money" — the "special interests." More than 76% of his donations come from people who gave $50 or less.

8:29: The John Doe investigation. Walker says he has integrity. He was an Eagle Scout as a boy. He helped the investigation, he's not a target, and this is a distraction. Barrett points to Walker's criminal defense fund. (The question asked whether these insinuations about Walker are "responsible.") Barrett says he wants to "clear the air."

8:33: What about the flee-baggers? (The Democratic senators who fled the state.) Barrett says he would "seek to work with people" so we won't "face these huge civil wars." He brings up "divide and conquer" again. He'd "set the tone for the organization." [By "organization," he means the government.] Walker "dropped the bomb" — that was "his phrase." Walker makes claims of some bi-partisan actions. Barrett wants to go back to old battles, says Walker, quoting Barrett saying he'd "target" people and "take them on."

8:36: What about encouraging mining (and protecting the environment)? Walker says recall politics stood in the way of legislation that would have enabled the mining operations to go forward. Barrett says Walker isn't willing to "work with people." Barrett would have brought everyone together and asked: "Is there a need for this mine?"

8:40: Gay marriage. Barrett is for it. Young people favor "marriage equality." He shoehorns equal pay for equal work into his allotted time. Enough with the gays; on to the women. Walker says he's sworn to uphold the (state) constitution, and that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, so that's what he supports. As to equal pay, that's the law and he supports it and enforces it. He has nieces, so it matters to him personally.

8:43: Education. Walker (naturally) says he supports education. He has sons. He explains that his reforms have made more money available to avoid laying off teachers and to favor teachers based on merit. Barrett points to the spending cuts. (I'm still waiting to hear where Barrett would make the cuts to solve the budget problems.) Barrett manages to say "divide and conquer" again.

8:46: Access to health care. Barrett endorses all manner of spending. (Where will he cut?!) Walker cites spending that he did make, with reforms "to make sure it's sustainable." Of course, we have "a basic safety net," but if you can get your health insurance elsewhere, we're going to push you out to that. Barrett hasn't told us what he would do to economize.

8:50: What can Walker do to re-unify the state after all this turmoil? Walker says we sure don't want to go back and "rehash" the things we've already done. It's the "move forward" argument. Barrett says "you have to establish trust." He accuses Walker of dishonesty (referring again to those jobs numbers). He accuses Walker of "punishing" his "enemies." Barrett claims that that he, by contrast, would "work with people" and "get things done."

8:53: Walker has an opportunity to ask Barrett a question, and Walker just declines. He says the voters "don't want to hear us bickering," so it's immediately Barrett's turn to speak. Barrett seems pleased, but he speculates about what Walker might have thought he would ask about, and that would be the John Doe investigation. But that's already been asked, so he asks about Walker's traveling and out-of-state speaking and fund-raising. Will Walker disclose the details? Walker says he thinks the people in Wisconsin who've seen him — here, he names a bunch of Wisconsin places — know he's focused on Wisconsin. "I stood up and took on the powerful special interests at both the state and the local level, [which], in the past, had dictated to taxpayers what they were going to do... I put the power back in the hands of the taxpayers." Barrett repeats his question, the request for details about out-of-state donors. Walker repeats his (non-responsive) answer: He's fought for the taxpayers.

8:56: Closing statements. Barrett says he doesn't want to be a "rock star." He's said "no" to his "friends" as well as his opponents. He wasn't the "first choice" of the unions. Walker doesn't "ask for shared sacrifice." Barrett says (again) that he will "end the civil war." Walker says he "often chuckle[s] when [he] hear[s] the word courage, because, to [him] it's amazing that politics is the only profession out there where you're somehow called courageous just by keeping your word." He gets "courage" from the "people [he] meet[s] every day." He wants to "move the state forward" for the sake of the people of Wisconsin and the next generation.

9:05: I'd say the 2 men were pretty evenly matched. No one made any mistakes. They got their points out, and they both spoke fluently, without losing steam over the course of the hour. I doubt if many minds were changed. If there was an opportunity to screw up, it wasn't taken. I was annoyed by Barrett's calling Governor Walker "Scott" repeatedly. Barrett tried to goad Walker and annoy him, but Walker never took the bait. Walker never showed any disrespect. If anyone noticed that, perhaps there was a slight tip for Walker. But Barrett's the one with the uphill battle here.

There was a glaring question that was never asked, which was: What would Barrett do to solve the state's budget problems? He's never been specific, and he totally got away with it (unless the home viewers noticed it on their own).

Let us talk about the deer czar and eliminating state forest so deer hunters will have to pay a fee to private land owners to hunt.

Lie. Its an increase in land available. It was an ACQUISITION of land easements.

MADISON – The Department of Natural Resources today announced it is poised to make the largest recreational and forest land acquisition in state history, an easement on 67,346.8 forest acres in Douglas, Bayfield, Burnett and Washburn counties from the Lyme St. Croix Forest Company.

this is the state of hunting in Texas, thanks to Scott Walker's Deer Czar and the fencing lobby. The Deer Czar thinks that public game management is “the last bastion of communism." If you can't pay what a deer is worth, then shut up and hunt rabbits. People who call for more public lands are “cocktail conservationists,” and national parks are “wildlife ghettos.” The Deer Czar will do what he has already done in Texas--make hunting available to the well-heeled. Keep the peasants out and the deer fenced in. More below.

Oh yes we have seen Walker in the last eleven days but he doesn't say where he has been before that.- so typical of the talking point evasions he produced for the debate, but I am biased of course-- still I I found Barrett the one who seemed like the adult who can pull the state together and lead us "forward," and I suspect I am not alone in these feelings.

Just talked to my fav 1st cousin who lives in Oconomowoc. She and her husband had watched the debate and was happy with the performance of Walker. I didnt get to watch as I had a graduation Party, but just got back and read the live-blogging of Ann, which I always like to read. Seems my cousin is not alone.

I was particularly impressed with Barrett's stirring defense of compulsory union dues for public teachers, the union insurance company's exclusive health insurance franchise and other union perks. He was also impressive in his far ranging and creative ideas of how to restrain state spending and limit the growth of government. The success of Milwaukee's public schools also is a very strong argument for a Barrett victory.

Yeah, I was rolling on the floor laughing when Barrett said Walker wasn't involved in the mining negotiations.

Barrett was not a rock star but a black hole emitting no heat nor light while his local congressmen said no to jobs at Joy Global and Caterpiller just so the Democrats could stick it to Walker. Any one want to deny that?

Gov. Scott Walker is encouraging lawmakers to break their impasse over legislation that would streamline the state's mining permitting process.

Gov. Scott Walker said Tuesday he’s using his “bully pulpit” to encourage action on a mining bill before the Legislative session ends on March 15. Walker made speeches in three cities to promote legislation enabling a Florida company

You liberals? There's this thing called the internet that has a lot of history. You can't just say Walker didn't focus. Here's where Democrats (again) showed they cared less about working people and taxpayers and are all about political power.

Bu, bu, bu David..It's not about that stuff. It's about trust. Rolling up sleeves and working together. And not being rock stars.Don't you trust a system where "labor" can extract dues and vote in their own management? You hate the children.

I hadn't seen Barrett speak previously - at least not anything more than soundbites. To me he spoke presuming a context I did not have - the context of being deeply embroiled in his own view of the political campaign. He seemed angry and his anger caused him to be a bit flustered. Frankly I was surprised he's the mayor of Milwaukee.

Now, it's Barrett, slowly and dramatically telling us — as scripted — about how Walker "tore this state apart."

Yeah, Walker forced teachers to walk off the job and force school closings for as much as a week in some cases.

Barrett says Walker raises too much money from out of state.

That's rich, considering Barrett and the Wisconsin Dems are pissed that the DNC wont send them any out-of-state money. Its not Walker's fault that Barrett's party sees Barrett as a loser, unworthy of party money.

Barrett says he would "seek to work with people" so we won't "face these huge civil wars."

Once again, Dems fail to own up to their own responsibilities.

The 14 senators that fled are elected representatives of their districts. Whether they like it or not, they dont answer to the governor...they answer to their constituents. The fact that they are now 14 unpopular scumbags because of their foolish stunt isnt Walker's fault.

Barrett says Walker isn't willing to "work with people." Barrett would have brought everyone together and asked: "Is there a need for this mine?"

Barrett must have been too busy drawing up Milwaukee trolley plans to find out that Walker probably spent 2 solid months promoting the mine, visiting the area, and working to get a bill passed.

And I cant believe I just heard a politician, in this job climate, actually say "is there a need for this mine?" Are you fucking kidding me? And you wonder why corporations are fleeing the city of Milwaukee.

Barrett claims that that he, by contrast, would "work with people" and "get things done."

Yes, Milwaukee is a city just busting at the seams with great economic development, a high quality downtown area, and a safe city where violent crime is rare.

Tom Barrett is a moron. There is simply no other way to say it. Scott Walker could simply stand there for an hour, say nothing, and still win a debate with this guy, because he is nothing but an empty suit with no ideas, no plans, no vision, and no balls...just stupidity.

Back when I lived in Brown Deer, and Mayor Barrett was my representative in the House, I often wrote him letters regarding upcoming legislation. His responses invariably ignored the position and logical arguments of my letters, and went on to thank me for supporting HIS position on the matter at hand.

Of course he got away with it. The press doesn't care--whatever he does is bound to be better than what Scott Walker's doing. That's a matter of faith on the left. Much like the meme that Obama's troubles are all related to circumstances beyond his control, so there's no point in asking him about it.

Two or more people answering questions put to them by moderators is not a debate.

On a separate note, when will Republicans start insisting that 50% of the moderators must be Republicans, instead of the current situation where 98% of them are drawn from the activist wing of the Democratic Party?

"Scott Walker could simply stand there for an hour, say nothing, and still win a debate with this guy, because he is nothing but an empty suit with no ideas, no plans, no vision, and no balls...just stupidity."

For a minute there, I thought you were talking about Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

I've always admired Debbie Wasserman Shultz for her dulcet intonations and her soft lovely hair that bounces playfully to her shoulders. She always has such nice things to say about everybody and she always sees the best in everybody and never a cross word.

There was a glaring question that was never asked, which was: What would Barrett do to solve the state's budget problems?

Erin Davisson asked him about it as a part of her first question, and he totally did not answer it, and she let him off the hook. It is good that Gov. Walker pointed out near the end that Mayor Barrett has avoided answering that question for 44 days.

"... willing to roll up my sleeves" -- where have we heard that (many times) before?

roesch/voltaire said... Moving the state forward, drink. Let us talk about the deer czar and eliminating state forest so deer hunters will have to pay a fee to private land owners to hunt.

Yes he actually said that.When he was working with the TEXAS DNR. He was referring to the way the TEXAS DNR ran their program.Nowhere in the Preliminary Report is privatising public land mentioned.Do you consider lying a virtue?

Didn't see the debate, but I did drive from St. Croix Falls to Winter on Friday. Walker signs outnumbered Barrett signs by a ratio of 5 or 6 to 1, with Walker having an advantage in the size of the signs as well. Saw a few Petrowski and Seidel signs too, with Petrowski having more but not so lopsided a ratio. Interesting to see some places with a Seidel sign not also having a Barrett sign.

Okay Rusty why would Walker want to hire a Deer Czar from Texas who had made these wild statements and considers the Wisconsin tradition of game management communistic? That said, Unknown PR, I do applaud the easement purchase of the Brule-St Croix Legacy Forest, but I do not see how that should lessen my worry about Walker who seems to show his true colors by hiring Deer Czar, do we really need one, from Texas.

Up to the lake driving through NW Wisconsin. Tally of Walker to Barrett signs....25/8.

Sure, I suppose Walker has more money to spend, but you still have to get people to agree to put up the signs. And until recently, at least where I live, that took some courage. Not sure if those posting Barrett signs would get grief from partisans, but Walker signs will sure buy ya some...

The three R's of Walker's reforms are: Rebalance, Rebid, Rearrange. 1. Rebalance the amount contributed by public service employees so that health care and pension contributions do not destroy local budgets. 2. Rebid contracts for all public services whether large like health care or small like school lunches. 3. Rearrange schedules to eliminate featherbedding while keeping jobs. The 3 R's are not possible while public union's retain unrestricted collective bargaining power (and buy Democratic politicians with union dues) so that means that the power to abuse collective bargaining must be restricted. But the point of the restriction is to return power to the local communities so that they can carry out the 3 R's and balance their budgets without mass layoffs.

roesch/voltaire said... Okay Rusty why would Walker want to hire a Deer Czar from Texas who had made these wild statements and considers the Wisconsin tradition of game management communistic? That said, Unknown PR, I do applaud the easement purchase of the Brule-St Croix Legacy Forest, but I do not see how that should lessen my worry about Walker who seems to show his true colors by hiring Deer Czar, do we really need one, from Texas.

Did you deliberately misrepresent the Koll's position vis-a-vis Wisconsins deer situation or are you willfully misinformed?

As I pointed out before Koll's Statement concerning Texas deer management concerned TEXAS DEER MANAGEMENT. Did you even read the preliminary report?

Scott Walker needs to tell Barrett that he will discuss the private "divide-and-conquer" conversation that he had with Diane Hendricks just as soon as President Obama explains the open mic conversation that he had with Russian President Medvedev regarding missile defense.

Walker simply had a partisan conversation with a supporter while Obama implies that he will dangerously weaken our national security after his attains reelection.

Anecdotally, I'm up in Door Co. this week opening the house for the summer, and the yard signage is about two to one pro Walker. Since the Barrett people tend to have multiple signs (They feel everything soooo strongly.) the ration is probably somewhat higher. In '08, the whole place was awash in "hope" posters. Keep on choomin'.